The Maverick Conservative

Barack "Spanish" Obama: Citizen of the World

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:02:51 GMT

Obama, in the U.S. "America, this is our moment. This is our time." Yep. He said it here first, arrogant as it was (equating electing himself with a messianic event). But that did not come close to plumbing the depths (heights, from his point of view) of arrogance.

Here is Obama, in Berlin plagiarizing HIMSELF (although also repeating what Bono and other leftists are out there saying): "People of the World: This is our moment. This is our time"

Yep. Obmaa is telling the WORLD that the U.S. must elect him to SAVE THE WORLD. Obama PROMISED to REMAKE THE WORLD, as well.

This is the single, most dangerous combination of arrogance, combined with lack of qualifications, ever to run for President of the United States. I have told you before that I could vote for Hillary Clinton for President (over John McCain--not that she would be my first choice), but I can't stomach voting for Obama because he is too DANGEROUS (to the country, as I think he may actually be the SAVIOR of CONSERVATIVES--ironic in the extreme if Obama represents The Messiah, or perhaps anti-Christ is the more accurate analogy, to bring in the reign of CONSERVATIVES, and rescue us from the wilderness).

Yes, I have, accurately, told you that my feminist younger daughter, Kyla, seems to be ready to use the Presidency as a mere stepping stone to being ruler of the world. First, I did not say she intended to do it before she had the objective qualifications. Second, however, I am known to exaggerate somewhat as to my daughters. They are not QUITE as bad as I make them out to be. I did not realize that Obama would beat Kyla to the punch, and basically aspire to be Emperor of the World, and Messiah, all rolled into one arrogant package who reads a teleprompter well.

Denver, Gasoline, and Democrats

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:32:40 GMT

You could never make this story up.

Democrats, including Barack "Spanish" Obama, have made a big point of labeling McCain's idea of a "gas tax holiday" as merely a gimmick. Repeating dirty little secret: Leftist Democrats DO NOT WANT lower gasoline prices because they want to USE the high gas prices to force a Federal Government takeover of all of our energy choices :(sharing that goal with that central planer, T. Boone Pickens). Dirty little secret no. 2: The MAIN Democrat objection to a gas tax holiday is that it reduces government revenue, and government revenue is a sacred thing to Democrats--UNLESS it is to their advantage to cost the government revenue.

Yes, you don't get any more HYPOCRITICAL than what has happened in Denver--the site (lest you forget) of the Democratic National Convention (and Obama's planned Sermon on the Mount in a huge stadium, which is how it will be treated by a media that has lost all pretense of objectivity as to The Messiah).

The city of Denver has made a deal with the Democrat National Committee for a GAS TAS HOLIDAY on gasoline sold to the Democrats. Further, Democrats have not even been paying for the gasoline they have ben using--RUNNING A TAB.

How can you claim that it is a mere "gimmick" to have a moratorium on gasoline taxes, and then negotiate this sweetheart deal to get that very same tax break. Easy. All you have to be is a DEMOCRAT, of the politician and/or leftist kind.

When the mayor of Denver was asked about this (can't make this up either), his response was: "Johnny does it" (you know, the excuse you unsuccessfully--if you had good parents--tried on your parents when you did something wrong). Yes, the mayor of Denver said that the Republicans had the same kind of deal with St. Paul. This was promptly denied by St. Paul and the Republicans, as if it was material in the first place.

It turns out that it probably VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW to give a special tax break to Democrats (at the same time Democrats are RIDICULING the same tax break for everyone). It probably constitutes an ILLEGAL political contribution. Of course, you don't hear much about it from the mainstream media, which is too busy worshipping Obama.

How can you even be a member of the mainstream media, OR a leftist Democrat, and sleep at night? Merely keeping track of your DECEPTIONS should keep you awake. Oops! I forgot. The question answers itself. If you are either a member of the mainstream media, you have no conscience AND not brain enough to recognize your own hypocrisies and intellectual dishonesty.

P.S. The true "gimmicks" on gasoline are, of course, the POLITICAL ducking and weaving of Democrats on th subject. Democrats tried to blame the big oil companies, but gave up when they realized that every dunce out there realized that a TAX on oil companies MIGHT RAISE the price of gasoline, but could never lower it. So Democrats switched to blaming the SPECULATORS, because nobody likes the speculatiors (politicians DO tend to like the oil companies, because they are a source of MONEY--for Democrats as much as Republicans). Probblem: There is no evidence that speculators are really responsible for the persistent high cost of gasoline, and--more fundamentally--oil is a WORLDWIDE market. That means that "cracking down" on speculators here in the U.S. accompishes NOTHING as to the price of gasoline (since speculation in oil prices continues in the rest of the world markets--and U.S. speculators simpley move overseas, to the extent they are affected at all). Finally, SOME Democrats (Nancy Pelosi) have suggested using ALL of the Strategic Oil Reserve--a "gimmick" that would endanger the NATIONAL SECURITY of this country. All of this ducking and weaving is to avoid the obvious conclusion that Democrats are INSANE to be opposing the lifting of restrictions on DRILLING for oil and development of oil shale. Did I forget the Democrat gimmick of suggesting that oil companies have all of this land that they have NOT drilled on, even though the law already is that leases have to be developed in a certain period of time or be lost. Democrats seemingly (except they don't really believe it but are only DUCKING AND WEAVING with DECEPTION) want to require oil companies to drill wells on every piece of land upon which they may have a lease, EVEN IF IT IS UNECONOMIC TO DRILL, before being able to drill where they KNOW there is oil. Democrats, of course, want to DECEIVE the public into believing that oil companies lease land becasue they know there is oil there. What they do is lease land to INVESTIGATE whether there is oil there (which you can do nowadays without drilling, although exploratory drilling may be necessary to determine the full extent of an oil find). Now those are REAL "gimmicks". Democrats know a real gimmick when they see one. As Denver shows, they also know a real SAVINGS when they see one.

P.S. 2: If you read this blog, you know that I have suggested, along with an IMMEDIATE 20% CUT IN GASOLINE USE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (rather than coercion of the public, who do not have access to sweetheart deals like the Democrats in Denver), that we release (at the same rate we bought it) oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve equal to the amount we mistakenly BOUGHT over the past year. Unlike the suggestion of Nancy Pelosi, this will not materially affect our national security, since we should not have been buying oil AT ANY PRICE in the firs place. How can we call, for example, of CHINA and INDIA to stop HOARDING oil AT ANY PRICE, when that is exactly what we were doing. What the President and Congress SHOULD have done, in conjunciton with an AGGRESSIVE lifting of drilling and oil shale restrictions, was to both have the Federal Government tigten ITS belt on the use of gasoline and energy--while at the same time sending a further message that we are SERIOUS about lowering gasoline prices (which Democrats are NOT) by a SYMBOLIC sale of some oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve (so long as the price is at least $120.00 dollars per barrel). For those Democrats, and others, who say that nothing could be done about the price of gasoline, you LIE. I guarantee you that the above actions would--at least short term--drive DOWN the price of gasoline. Are only hope to avoid another "crisis" in the future is DRILLING and development of domestic energy resources, including oil, coal, and nuclear power. Alternative energy is AT LEST two decades away from being economic on a large scale, and oil DRILLING can be helpful in 2 to 5 years. Every gallon drilled here in the U.S. is a gallon we do not have to get from foreign sources, in addition to whatever alternative energy we are able to develop. Meanwhile, the public DESERVES the same break on taxes "netotiated" by the Democrats in Denver, while GOVERNMENT tightens its belt.

John Edwards Love Child? Media Hypocrisy?

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:24:05 GMT

Larry Craig made national news for mere disorderly conduct (with innuendo).

Here is what is going on with John Edwasrs, which is being COVERED UP by the mainstream media (sanctimonious hypocrites that they are):

"Although the Craig story and the John Edwards story, currently unfolding thanks to the National Enquirer, aren't directly analogous, they have a bit in common. Edwards, too, may be a sex hypocrite. The tabloid called Edwards a cheater last October and the father of a love child in December, and last night the Enquirer posted a story about Edwards' visit to his alleged mistress and child at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night."

If you remember John Edwards, Democrat Presidential candidate and "leader" (I forgive you if you have forgotten him), HIS WIFE IS SICK (which those sanctimonious hypocrites in the media were accepting as an ASSET in Edwards' campaign, as he and his wife allegedly chose to continue the campaign despite her cancer).. What a guy John Edwards is. No hypocrisy there (sarcastic sarcasm, if you are in doubt).

Now do I vouch for the Nastional Enquirer. No. I just vouch for it being MORE reliable than the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" and the rest of the mainstream media. I have altready apologized in this blog for INSULTING the National Enquirer by a slip of the mind where I inadvertently typed that name instead of the "Philadelphia Inquirer"--which was the leftist newspaper I was talking about. I apologized TO THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER because it is a vastly superior publication to the Philadelphia Inquirer. I am actually not sure, in current times, that the National Enquirer is less responsible in reporting GOSSIP than the mainstream media (I specifically INCLUDE Fox News here).

Is the mainstream media even interested in whether John Edwards has a "love child", while his wife is struggling with cancer? Nope. Therefore, you KNOW you will not get the "truth" here from the mainstream media. You MIGHT get the "truth" from the National Enquirer.

Soy: Darwinism at Work

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:53:43 GMT

Does this explain why leftists want an endless supply of NEW "poor" people by means of illegal immigration (or opening the border so that there is no such thing as "illegal" immigration)?

Do leftists realize that DARWIN may spell their doom.

Darwinism is somewhhat inaccurately sescribed as "survival of the tittest". It is more accurately described as "natural selection", where certain genes are selected against and others are favored, in terms of passing on the genes to living offspring.

Leftists are VOLUNTARILY selecting against themselves (I know: this ignores that my TWO DAUGHTERS are TRAITORS to their conservative upbringing--obviously not inheriting my "conservative gene")/ Think ABORTION here, which may partly explain the decline of "feminism" (Hillary LOST).

Well, the BBC is now reporting that a diet high in SOY cuts a male's sperm count IN HALF. Is it not true that leftists are the ones attracted to vegetarina fads like soy? Oh, there are exceptions. But, as a generality, that is true.

No wonder leftists NEED illegal immigrants. They need RECRUITS, and they are naturally selecting against themselves.

Gasoline, the Arctic, and Leftist Insanity

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:09:10 GMT

As I have repeatedly stated, leftists (of the activist, irrational kind--most of them) do not really WANT to reduce the price of gasoline, if it means more production of oil. They DECEIVE on the subject, but they are finding it harder and harder to deceive as to this particular insanity. If we are in a "crisis", or facing one in the foreseeable futre, there is just no excuse not to allow DRILLING for more oil. Every barrel we drill is a barrel we do not have to replace with either "alternative" energy" or forced (freedom limiting) "conservation". It would even be CHEAPER to subsidize DRILLING with tax credits than the MASSIVE subsidies that are being asked (specifically INCLULDING by that NON-FREE MARKET "oil man", T. Boone Pickens) for "alternative energy". I don't favor tax subsidies for oil, since I don't think oil companies should expect taxpayer subsidies at these oil prices, but it is leftist Democrat INSANITY to OBSTRUCT private drilling for oil (McCain has, of course, for too long been a part of the insanity, although he is gradually coming around to rationality, while Obama keeps getting more irrational with his "plan" to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to 35% by 2030 WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DRILLING). Here is todays story (lead paragraphs--go to source for full story) from Bloomberg.com:

"The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

One-third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found in a study released today. By contrast, a geologic formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.

Energy producers such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp. have accelerated exploration of the northernmost regions for untapped reserves amid record prices and receding access to deposits in more hospitable climates. Russia's move to scrap a United Nations convention and carve out an exclusive Arctic zone sparked protests from Canada, the U.S., Norway and Denmark."

Note that those former Communists in Russia are NOT insane, like American leftists (the modern communists/Marxists). Russia would already have drilled in ANWR, were it in Russian territory. It is an ICY WILDERNESS. Not even many ANIMALS live there. The drilling area would be about the size of a football field, or maybe a few football fields, in a total refuge the size of South Carolina.

There is just no doubt. Leftist Democrats are INSANE, and do not want the price of gasoline to drop. They go along with Harry "Dirty Oil" Reid, who has publicly suggested that oil is too dirty to use, and is best left in the ground.

San Francisco and Illegal Immigrants: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Confirmed

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:35:57 GMT

Not that there was ever any doubt, but that San Francisco more than fully deserved Saturday's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate award (see Saturday's entry) has again been confirmed:

"The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law.

The case has put San Francisco's liberal politics to the test, setting off a debate over its sanctuary law that shields undocumented immigrants from deportation."

The above AP story is now linked on Drudge (although not, as far as I can tell, featured on AOL--AOL generally mainly featuring stories advancing a LEFTIST agenda). It is about an illegal immigrant who got stuck in traffic, and pulled out an AK-47 and killed a man and his two sons, even though he had been in trouble with the law before and would long ago have been deported in any RATIONAL city (which would have reported him to immigration authorities). Not, of course, in San Francisco. San Francisco is dominated by IRRATIONAL leftists who DECEIVE routinely on the question of illegal immigration (note the deceptive "undocumented" in the AP{ story, as if the problem was merely one of losing documents, or picking up the appropriate documents from a clerk).

The may of San Francisco, of course, has assured illegal immigrants that they are welcome, and safe, in San Francisco--with the leftist dominated city even passing a LAW that makes it a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

There is already speculation about whether the city can be SUED by relatives of the DEAD MEN (leftists ROUTINELY have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS, although they don't seem to realize it). That lawsuit is somewhat questionable, because of the doctrine of government immunity (a doctrine that leftists tend not to like except when they hide behind it).

What there is no doubt about is that illegal immigrants are MUCH more welcome in San Francisco than the U.S. military. The city has tried to EXCLUDE the U.S. military (while trashing it), at the same time it welcomes illegal immigrants.

Q.E.D. San Francisco deserved "the Finger". It probably even deserves to win it again, if not for the reluctance of "the Finger" to stay pointed at the same deserving target for two consecutive weeks.

P.S. Not to worry. Barack "Spanish" Obama (see last week's entry for explanation oft he nickname) says "they'll learn" (referring to illegal immigrants--only slightly out of context: see those entries last week again). Obama suggests that you worry about your children learning Spanish, rather than about illegal immigrants fitting in here.

Basseball and ESPN (Guest Appearance by Soccer and the Europeans)

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:15:17 GMT

Rating: 0

The rating is for ESPN's baseball coverage, which is the worst I have ever seen. Yes, if you go back in the archives, you will see that the rating also applies to ESPN itself. I only watch anything on ESPN when I can't see it anywhere else (like a football or baseball game only being carried on ESPN).

However, it is getting difficult. I spent the first 12 years of my life in Arkansas. That means I grew up with Harry Carey, Stan Musial and the St. Louis Cardinals.

Now it is just a GAME, and there is no real, logical reason to root for one team over another (especially in this era of player mobility, but the principle really is independent of trashing modern, money oriented sports). Is anyone's life really changed by their team losing a baseball game? Now there is a certain existential satisfaction/pain in being a Chicago Cubs fan, without a championship since 1908. But that has more to do with the experience of being a fan, than with the game or the team. In the end, that is what it is really all about. Being a fan is about the FAN, and not about the team.

Regardless of the lack of logic, I have remained at least a mild St. Louis Cardinal fan throughout my life. Thus, I tend to watch a St,. Louis Cardinal game on TV, even though watching baseball on TV is just a few steps above watching golf or soccer (NOTHING is only one step above watching soccer, including watching grass grow).

I made the mistake of trying to watch the ESPN Monday game featuring the St. Louis Cardinals vs. the Milwaukee Brewers. I say "tried", because that coverage was NOT about the fan. It was not about the game. It was about the ESPN people in the booth (typical of ESPN). For several innings, you got more pictures of the people in the booth than you did of the game. You definitely did not get any COVERAGE of the GAME.

What you got (I could not make this up) was an interminable "interview" (while the game was going on) with the Brewers' GM, and the Cleveland Indians GM on the phone (after phone glitches, taking the place of coverage of the GAME as they were addressed ON AIR, were corrected). I guess it was the GM they were talking to. WHO CARES? Each respective GM was not evenasked much about his TEAM. What the ESPN people were obsessed with were the MECHANICS and psychology of the recent trade whereby the Brewers acquired a major pitcher from Cleveland. Even after the "interviews" were over, the people in the ESPN booth spent another TWO INNINGS discussing the "ins and outs" of this trade. Give me a break. I definitely needed one. Thank God for commercials.

Meantime, there was a GAME going on (even it if it is just a game, and not fundamentally important to any fan's life). The ESPN announcers paid no attention. They rarely even noted the count--occasionally looking up to note the RESULT of a player's at bat.

It was not that this was a 9 to 0 game where air time had to be filled--knowing most people had given up on the game. This was an EXITING game, not decided until the 9th inning. You would not know it from the coverage. Note that all of this "filler" coverage, featuring the BOOTH, was NOT between innings. Heaven forbid that they should miss a chance to do a commercial. They went away for a (blessed) commercial every half inning, only to return to the SAME, interminable discussion.

Nope. It is the WORST coverage of a baseball game I have ever seen. I give it a "zero" rating only for lack of a lower rating to give. The only competition comes from ESPN coverage of other games, by the way.

It boggles the mind that ESPN is still around. No one would miss it, so long as the games themselves were covered elsewhere.

P.S. That stuff above about it being merely a game does NOT apply to FOOTBALL. That would be heresy. As all real men know, football is not a game. It is a RELIGION (certainly more important than that sham religion of "global warming"). One of the many virtues of American FOOTBALL is that Europeans, and other effete snobs, insist that the "real" "football" in the WORLD is "soccer", and that it shows something deficient about the American Character that we have adopted this violent, fake "football" over the real "international" game. My take is that this PROVES that we don't need approval from Europeans, and the rest of the world, for what we do. That they prefer soccer over American football shows how INFERIOR and BENIGHTED they are--their opinions not worth considering on any subject. That is why American leftists fell such an affinity with Europeans, even though real LIBERTY came from, and was defended by, teh Unted States of America (not by Europe or the rest of the world--albeit our former parent, Britain, lent a hand). (I am aware that soccer is probably even beigger in South America than in Europe, but it came from Europe.)

Race and the Anti-American Media (Continued, Featuring AOL and the Anti-American Racist AP)

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:07:46 GMT

See yesterday's entries exposing the racism of the mainstream media, especially the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press (always use complete, official name the first time). Yes, it remains true that the majority of true racists in our society today are leftists. Here is yet another anti-military, anti-American, essentially racist story from the AP, featured on AOL today:

"Sixty years after President Truman desegregated the military, senior black officers are still rare, particularly among the highest ranks.

Blacks make up about 17 percent of the total force, yet just 9 percent of all officers. That fraction falls to less than 6 percent for general officers with one to four stars, according to data obtained and analyzed by The Associated Press."

As I have illustrated previously, using AP and mainstream media stories as an example, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics" (in quotes, because I did not make it up). See, for example, my proof yesterday taht polls as to "whites" favoring Barack "Spanish" Obama, even if accurate, do NOT provide ANY evidence taht the CANDIDATE'S race is a factor (as distinguished from his position as a leftist Democrat).

The above quoted AP "lead" is from another one of those "AP IMPACT stories. As I have shown you before, whenever you see that, you should hold your wallet and your nose. You are about to be subjected to anti-American propaganda of the most virulent and indefensible kind--usually blatant anti-American military propaganda.

First, is it RACIST to suggest that African-Americans, AS A GROUP, should be entitled to the exact same percentage of officers as their percentage in the enlisted ranks? Of course it is. I have already established that the AP is a RACIST organization (as well as anti-American and despicable). WHY should individuals in the army have GROUP rights based on their race? That, of coures, is QUOTA thinking, and RACIST. But it gets WORSE. I can hear leftists thinking (I know them as well as I know every inch of my glorious, naked body--yes, I stole the line from Rush Limbaugh, but it is still true). It shows discrimination that the numbers are so disparate.

No, it doesn't (you fools should learn to stop doubting me, especially where the hopeless AP is concerned. African-Americans are approximately 10-11% of the population. Compare that with the numbers the AP has MANUFACTURED (in the sense of suggesting they have a significance they don't have) above, and the numbers don't appear out of line. The real story here--the PRO-AMERICAN PRO-MILITARY story that the AP will never tell--is that African-Americans have SIGNIFICANT opportunity in the military--probably more than they have (by the numbers) in most areas of American society.

Nope. It is NOT significant that African-Americans make up 17% of all military personnel, unless you are a LEFTIST RACIST wanting entitlements to depend on a person's race, regardless of logic or reality. I am not sure I know what the right number is, but 17% is OBVIOUSLY the WRONG number to use for comparison purposes. It is using statistics to LIE, and the AP does this consistently to promote an anti-military and anti-American agenda.

How do you become an officer? Well, the easiest way is to go to West Point. Does the AP cite the percentage of African-Americans GRADUATING from West Point? Not on your life. It does not even matter if the AP were to mention it later in the story, because the relevant PERCENTAGE reverts to the 10 or 11%, and NOT to the 17%. WHY should African-Americans admitted to--much less graduating from--West Point (and other service academies) be more than the number of African-Americans in the general population? There is NO relationship between being qualified to enlist in the army (basically high school diploma and no serious criminal record) and being qualified to go to West Point or the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy. Even for OCS (officer's candidate school), more education, and "higher" qualifications than a high school diploma, presumably matter.

Now, in other contexts, leftists like John Kerry and Stephen King have suggested that STUPID people join the military as enlisted men (cannon fodder). Is THIS racist? Of course it is, using the AP's own 17% statistic.

However, what if you are a poor, African-American teenager with only a high school education, and looking at so many of your friends in jail or in the drug trade (as user and/or seller)? What if you are such a teenager from a rural area in Mississippi with no prospect of going to college, and needing a decent job to help support the mother who raised you? What is the SMART thing for you to do--especially if you are patriotic and not afraid of fighting for your country?

Right. For everyone but the anti-American AP, and similar leftists, the SMART thing for such a black teenager to do is join the military, if that teenager is not in a position to end up in Harvard or Princeton (like Barack "Spanish" Obama and his wife). Most of those African-American teenagers are not in a position to go to West Point, or even become officers (although those like Colin Powell and the others the AP dismisses so lightly show that the opportunity exists). Such poor, black teenagers can still join the army and have a GREAT LIFE. They can even use the army to get an education to obtain a better civilian job. I went to law school on the G. I. Bill. And there are educational opportunities in the military itself. That 17% figure shows that African-Americans who may not expect to be officers correctly see the military as an OPPORTUNITY. That is a GOOD thing--not a bad thing.

I know that leftists look at his as using "minorities" as cannon fodder to fight for "white" America. That tells you more about THEM than it does about anything else.

Doesn't it at least show that America is a racist society that so many Afircan-Americans find their best opportunity in the military? Not exactly. It shows that there are more POOR African-Americans, and African-Americans with, for example, a single mother parent. That MAY be the result of PAST racism, but it hardly shows that America is now a "racist society" (unless, of course, you are the anti-American AP with a RACIST attitude yourself).

It is a FINE thing that African-Americans make up 17% of the military. It is a FINE thing that they perceive the military as a way to both serve their country and gain a better life for themselves. It is a FINE thing that 8% of officers are African-Americans--very close to the African-Americans in the general population. It is a FINE thing that 6% of "command" officers are African-American. You know what the finest thing about all of those statistics: It is that those INDIVIDUALS have not let their race hold them back from having a good life. I would guess, from my own experience in the military, that most of them do not regard themselves as BLACK SOLDIERS, but simply as SOLDIERS.

The statistics cited by the AP do not even come close to showing discrimination. Rather, seen correctly, they tend to show that the military gives a BETTER opportunity to Arican-Americans than they otherwise might have. It does the same thing for a poor, WHITE kid from Mississippi, who has no chance to go to college. Yes, officers are going to have a different background than enlisted men A more relevant statistic would be the percentage of various enlisted grades (E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, etc.) who are African-Americans. If you are going to use statistics to try to bootstrap to GROUP RIGHTS, at least compare apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges.

However, the AP is not interested in fairness or accuracy. It is interested in anti-military and anti-American propaganda.

P.S. Yes, you might ask what percentage of TOP MANAGEMENT among those racist, sanctimonious hypocrites are African-American. But then you have to ask yourself what it would mean if a high percentage were African-American. I would hate to think that so many African-Americans would be directing the policies of the ANTI-AMERICAN Associated Press. As reflected by the percentage in the military, African-Americans seem to be more patriotic than that; and they should be BETTER than that (as should every American). If you work for the AP, you are both DUMB and ANTI-AMERICAN. You are hardly a credit to yourself or race (As if people should think of things that way. How many "white" people think of whether they are a "credit to their race"?) if you work for the despicable AP.

Racist Polls; Racist Media

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:13:43 GMT

Returning to today's theme in the blog that the mainstream media/leftists are the primary racists in the country today, consider the way the media does polls.

They EMPHASIZE people as members of racial groups, rather than individuals. I have said before that these polls are RACIST, and I stand behind that conclusion. What else can you call an approach to elections that emphasizes people as defined by their racial group? That is the very definition of racism.

Let me repeat the dirty little secret again: WE ARE ALL MONGRELS. There is no such thing as a "pure" race in the world. "But...But.But" you sputter, people identify THEMSELVES as being of a particular race. Not necessarily. They do if you MAKE them--such as the pollsters try to do in these polls, and the media tries to do in USING the meaningless polls. You also make them so identify themselves, of course, either with leftist "identity politics" or overt discrimination by the type of bigots (those other than leftists) that the left condemns. Our goal should be to STOP people from defining themselves by their race, rather than to ENCOURAGE it.

Back to polls. My daughters are 50% Mexican-American--fully as much Hispanic as Barack "Spanish" Obama is African-American. How should they answer a pollster who asks them their race/ethnicity? If they don't take my advice, and LIE to pollsters automatically, their answer will depend totally on their mood. Even I could CLAIM to be "Native American". There is NO DEFINITION of racial "identity". Are we to go back to the infamous Black Codes, where you were labeled as "black" if you had 1/8 black "blood" (in air, the blood is RED and identifiable only as homo sapiens blood)? Nope, there is NO way to define who is a member of a certain race and who is not.

WHO identifies themselves to a pollster as being of a certain race? Obviously, someone whose IDENTITY is bound up in that role, even though it should not MATTER, or even be something they think about much. They certainly should ignore it in their goals in life. There was a time when there were official BARRIERS to people of certain races getting ahead. Now there are none. Unofficial barriers can, and SHOULD, be ignored. Thus, "races" in polls really represent a SELF-SELECTED sample (scientifically invalid). If pollsters ASSIGN people to certain races/ethnic groups by their own criteria, that would only confirm my point that these polls are RACIST. I make another one of those flat statements (where I am never wrong): Polls purporting to give percentages on the opinions of certain RACES (you rarely see "Orientals" listed) are absolutely meaningless (as are the polls breaking down the opinion of certain religious groups, etc.).

Do we need these polls to figure out how these people are voting? Nope. You can look at African-American precincts and pretty much tell how African-Americans voted (as you can Hispanic precincts, like in El Paso). In fact, that is MUCH more meaningful that a "poll". You can even look at how INDIVIDUALS in different parts of the country, of the same "race", might have voted DIFFERENTLY. For example, is the Republican problem with Hispanics, or with POOR PEOPLE (do poor Hispanics vote any differently than other poor people?). It is still correct that to overemphasize voting patterns of RACES is RACIST.

That is because there are MANY factors besides race that enter into how a person votes. Is it a MAJOR (albeit not the only) reason that African-Americans vote Democratic that more of them are POOR? Yes, Democrats are SNOWING the "poor", and doing their best to destroy them. But it is still difficult to ignore PROMISES meant to buy you off.

Then look at the ridiculous, RACIST, reporting of these polls. A week or so ago, the reporting was all about how Barack "Spanish" Obama had a problem with WHITE voters--the explicit or implicit message being that Obama, as a black man, was faced with distrust, or outright racism, from "white" voters. Horse manure.

Yes, you could note that John McCain is the one facing the RACISM, since he is getting almost NONE of the "black vote". It would certainly be MORE accurate (in vote percentage terms) to say that McCain has a problem with BLACK voters. These polls were cited for Barack "Spanish" Obama getting "only" a little more than 30% of the "white vote". McCain would KILL for that much of the "black vote".

Does all of this have anything to do with RACE. Objectively, it has very little to do with race. How can I say that? I can say that because it is TRUE, and the RACIST media is STUPID.

What percentage of the "black vote" did John Kerry get? You, I and everyone knows that he got the usual 90% of so of the "black vote" that Democrat Presidential candidates get. Obama may better that by 5%, with somewhat more turnout, but can hardly do much better than that. So MAYBE 5% of the "black vote" can be explained by race.

It is even more striking with the "white vote". How much of the "white vote" did John Kerry get? I am sure I could find the supposed answer to that, but it is not necessary to look. Kerry got 90%, or more, of the "black vote". He also got a MAJORITY (I think 60%) of the Hispanic vote (part of the "white vote", really). So Kerry HAD to lose close to the same percentage of the white vote that Obma is losing (30% is misleading, because that represents the "approval" number, rather than actual votes).

The FACTS (the mainstream media would never recognize one) are that LEFTIST DEMOCRATS have a problem with the "white vote" because they (including Obama) have consistently, blatantly played racial and class politics. Obama has no more a problem with the "white vote" than John Kerry had; MAYBE Obama loses about 3% on racial prejudice grounds, but may pick up the same number on "racial guilt" grounds).

I DARE anyone to challenge this reasoning. It is just STUPID to suggest, as the media does (ENCOURAGING racial division) that the "white vote gap" on Obama is because of RACE. If that were true, John Kerry would be President.

"Green" Obama

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:08:47 GMT

Nope. The heading does NOT represent a new nickname for Barack "Spanish" Obma (see last week's entry for explanation).

It refers to the latest attempt by Obama to manipulate the media, because of his snesitivity to those "evil" internet people out there suggesting he is a Muslim.

I had not heard this. But Obama's campaign has told the press corps, or people accompanying him in the Middle East, NOT TO WEAR GREEN, because it is the "color" of Hamas (terrorist organization that Obama advisor met with).

This was actually news to Middle East experts, who do suggest that green is sort of considered the color of ISLAM--leading to the probable real explanation here. Just like removing those Muslim women from camer ange, this just appears to be Obama's attempt to "counter" thos persitent rumors that he is a Muslim.

I agree, by the way, that those rumors are ridiculous. It would be BETTER if Barack Obama were a Muslim. Instead, for 20 years he was not just a member, but fervent supporter, of Reverend Wright's cult, hate variation on the Church of Christ.